Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Yesterday I mistakenly wrote and subsequently reiterated last night in a comment that the percent of flights covered by air marshals is in the “double digits.” Frankly, this was a result of my haste to provide information and to get the truth out quickly about our federal air marshal program. It is simply not appropriate to discuss percentage of flights covered.

In no way was I trying to provide information that is inappropriate for release or to mislead the public in any way. The definitive numbers that we can provide about the program are; the number of marshals we currently have is in the thousands, our true attrition rate (that is any air marshal leaving the agency for any reason) is approximately 6.5 percent since the expansion of the program in the Fall of 2001 and that we deploy air marshals based on intelligence and risk.

Since launching this blog 60 days ago, our only goal has been direct, honest, personal communications with the traveling public. I sincerely apologize for this error and hope that it has not degraded or devalued the important dialogue that has been started on this forum.

I have edited the post below to reflect the facts of the matter. Again, I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.

Christopher
EOS Blog Team

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CNN aired a story on Anderson Cooper 360 from investigative reporter Drew Griffin on the federal air marshal service. In the piece, anonymous air marshals, pilots and other "experts" discuss "staggering" attrition rates and make assertions that less than 1 percent of flights are actually covered by air marshals. Below are the facts on how we deploy air marshals, air marshal attrition rates, and the reality behind this highly successful program.

Myths:

"Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights per day in the U.S., less than 1 percent are protected by federal air marshals."

"I would have to guess it's fewer than 1 percent of all my flights," the pilot said. "I'm guessing by coverage of when I go to those cities, fewer than 1 percent."

"That means that a terrorist or other criminal bent on taking over an aircraft would be confronted by a trained air marshal on as few as 280 daily flights."

"One pilot who crisscrosses the country and flies internationally told CNN he hasn't seen an air marshal on board one of his flights in six months. A federal law enforcement officer with is not affiliated with the air marshal service...has gone months without seeing a marshal on board."

Buster:

While the exact number of flights that air marshals protect is classified because we don't want terrorists to play a mathematical guessing game based on percentages, the actual number of air marshals employed by the agency is in the thousands.

Beyond the number of flights that air marshals physically cover, the more important question to ask is which flights are air marshals flying on. Using our intelligence-driven, risk-based approach, we deploy marshals on the highest risk flights. That means a team of air marshals might be on one flight based on intel and none may be on the next.

Simply parroting a sound bite from an anonymous expert or a pilot that flies to New York once a day with no knowledge of scheduling or intel isn't accurately portraying the situation. Random "experts" hardly encompass a qualified opinion on air marshal deployments. The bottom line is that there are thousands of hard-working, dedicated marshals flying day in and day out to protect the traveling public both domestically and abroad. We clearly told CNN their numbers were inaccurate and they chose to report these numbers anyway.

Myth:

"Air marshals who spoke with CNN anonymously...are especially troubled by the lack of coverage on flight in and out of Washington and New York."

Buster:

Flying air marshals speaking on condition of anonymity simply do not have access to global scheduling information. Every single day of the year, air marshal schedules are altered to cover specific, high-threat flights. That means on one day, many flights into and out of New York and D.C. may be covered and on other days, less flights may be covered.

The role of not releasing specific numbers of marshals or flights carrying marshals is an important one. We should not tip our hand to terrorists and let them know the mathematical probability of air marshals being on flights they may be interested in taking over or otherwise disrupting.

We fully desire terrorists to not know for sure if marshals will be on board their flight so that they will have to factor them into any plots involving aircraft.

Myth:

"Air marshals told CNN that while the TSA tells the public it cannot divulge numbers...the agency tells its own agents that at least 5 percent of all flights are covered."

"One marshal said that while security is certainly one reason the numbers are kept secret, he believes the agency simply doesn't want taxpayers to know the truth."

"...the average taxpayer understands there's no physical way to protect every single flight everywhere," the air marshal said. "But it's such a small percentage. It's just very aggravating for us"

Buster:

Today, the number of air marshals TSA employs is in the thousands. We know this because we build the schedule and we assign these air marshals to flights all over the world each and every day.

Myth:

"Sources inside the air marshal field offices told CNN that the program has been unable to stem the losses of trained air marshals since the program's numbers peaked in 2003."

Buster:

Federal air marshal service attrition rates have been approximately 6.5 percent since the program expanded after 9/11. This isn't an exodus by any means and is comparable to other federal law enforcement agencies. The job does require extensive travel, a high level of alertness for hours on end and one of the highest firearms qualifications standards in government.

Being an air marshal isn't for everyone but that should not detract from the thousands of dedicated public servants out flying today and every day to protect the traveling public.

Myth:

"They are whistling past the graveyard, hoping against hope that this house of cards that they call airline security doesn't come crashing down around them," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

Buster:

This insulting little sound bite discounts the dedicated service thousands of air marshals provide every day. While air marshals are an important layer of security, they are hardly the only thing stopping a terrorist from taking over an airplane. There are a full 20 layers of security, each vulnerable by itself but combined providing the highest level of security in the history of this nation.

Myth:

"CNN was told staffing in Dallas, Texas for instance is down 44 percent from its high, while Seattle, Washington, has 40 percent fewer agents. Las Vegas, Nevada, which had as many as 245 air marshals, this past February had only 47."

Buster:

Staffing in specific offices like Dallas, Seattle and Las Vegas has changed over the six years of the program BUT these air marshals have been shifted to other offices, not eliminated and not replaced.

"This represents exponentially more than 1 percent and is well into double digits."

FYI, the number one raised to *any* exponent is still one. But saying "exponentially higher" isn't an expression that would normally be applied to a constant number anyway, it would make much more sense discussing a function.

Another thing I wanted to point out, is with the attrition rate. Attrition as is stated is normal, however this isn't saying anything about the hiring of new marshalls. It's a possibility that we're losing 6.5% (average...is this averaged over the last 10 years, or averaged per year) marshalls, but not able to hire any new ones.

I'd love to see attrition broken down by year for the last 10 years. Not a number averaged over 10 years (which could mean attrition was 1-2% 5-10 years ago, and 10%+ currently).

Good comments. As you can probably tell, I wrote this post in a hurry. I have corrected the first ambiguity of the hundreds and thousands. It's more than a thousand flights per day, period.

Agree with the exponent argument as well, although math has never been my strong suit. The percentage of flights covered is many more than "less than 1" as quoted by CNN. The percent of flights covered is in double digits.

I'm sorry we can't be more specific but it's for very good reason. We simply don’t want people with bad intentions to know exactly how many flights we cover. I don’t think you’ll hear many arguments against that.

Concerning trusting CNN and their analysis over us, well that's certainly your right. My question for CNN would be, how did you come to that conclusion? As I said before I'm not a math whiz but I do know less than 1 percent is grossly under the actual number. I’d be very interested to hear that answer.

CNN is an entertainment medium. They live and die by ratings, and vague allegations of danger sell a lot better than happy stories of success. CNN is not above inventing stories out of whole cloth, and they are certainly not above selectively quoting sources happy to throw trash at anything. Given a choice of who to believe, I'll believe even an informal TSA statement over an anonymously-sourced CNN hit piece any day of the week.

A better question, though, is how much air marshal coverage is really needed? I appreciate their presence as one element of defense in depth, but I don't necessarily consider 20% coverage four times as good as 5%, nor do I think there is any rational way of computing it. Security is absolutely part theater, and the chief value of the air marshal program is the fact that a class of bad guys know about it and don't know precisely how big it is.

Flights where the air marshals have to actually intervene are uncommon enough to be news items in and of themselves. Flights where they should have intervened but there weren't any would seem to be newsworthy as well, but I haven't heard of any. I know that TSA keeps track of the former - do you watch the latter as well? How do you know? Either number would be interesting data.

Citizens are terrorized at the hands of TSO's. TSA rules are secret so no one know if the procedures they are going to be accepted today at any given airport.The rules that are not secret are not followed by TSO's.

"So you may be left asking yourself, why did CNN report this? Good question. They accept comments"

No, the real question is what form of petulant revenge will the TSA and the Bush Administration take against the reporter, Anderson Cooper, and CNN for daring to question one of their most visible symbols of power?

Here's a little bit of Media 1.01 for you. I'm surprised that Ellen Howe isn't running around doing all sorts of damage control spin right now.

Fact #1: Here's how the media works: I say 1+1=3.. You say 1+1=5. The story isn't that we're both wrong. The story is that we disagree.

Go on CNN and tell your side of the story. I dare you.

Fact #2: I was once involved in a high-level policy discussion about classified information. One of our well-respected consultants told us that the half-life of a secret fact in Washington is 7 years. So, that means you people in the TSA can expect that half of the classified information you have created will be made public within 7 years. So, the time is coincidentally right for all of this to be coming out.

It's interesting what your priotities are here on the blog. You're clearly in damage control mode. As you have seen, many of the responders on the blog call it like it is and back you into a corner.

Good luck with this one. Clearly, the public holds you to a higher standard concerning your trustworthiness, integrity, and priorities than your Administrator. I suspect your congressional liaison people will be getting busy starting tomorrow morning.

One final thought: Don't flatter yourselves about the Air Marshall program. The people over on www.flyertalk.com frequently play "spot the FAM" for a hobby. And, they are very good at it.

I welcome any “Media 1.01” lessons you’d like to impart. In fact, the other day I was watching a PBS show about journalism and the bureau chief of some AP bureau was saying that during President Reagan’s term, he had dozens of reporters that fact checked his every word and today, that same bureau chief had only a handful of reporters total. I agree, the days of “we report, you decide” are in the rear view mirror and have been replaced by “he said, she said.”

That’s the real challenge in communicating with the public on issues like this one. We write the air marshal schedule, we pay the salaries, we issue the guns yet our word is held with the same esteem or less as a guy wearing a bag over his head or a pilot flying to New York once a day. It’s not really “damage control” as it is true myth busting.

Concerning “Go on CNN and tell your side of the story. I dare you.” We worked with CNN on this piece for weeks, giving them fact after fact and as you so eloquently pointed out, it’s the controversy that sells. Now, not all CNN reporters are like that. In fact we work with several that are very fair. This isn’t about TSA versus CNN. It’s about telling the truth.

I’ll close with the experts out there picking the air marshal. I too thought I was a proficient air marshal spotter until I attended an all hands meeting in Chicago and I was amazed by the reality that all air marshals do NOT look the same at all…Kind of gives you something to think about next time you’re flying, doesn’t it.

Is TSA and the FAMS counting Air Marshals that return to their past federal job or a new federal position as a LOSS? I think not. They claim that person is still employed by the federal government and not a loss by their definition. If you define the 'statistic' you can make it show anything you want it to.

If they count all the dozens each month nationwide that return to Border Patrol and other agencies, the attrition rate cannot be under 7%.

They are only counting the losses due to Air Marshals leaving for private sector law enforcement, security and high-threat protection jobs overseas. Some even leave law enforcement altogether.

". . .My question for CNN would be, how did you come to that conclusion? As I said before I'm not a math whiz but I do know less than 1 percent is grossly under the actual number. I’d be very interested to hear that answer."

Christopher said, " . . . That’s the real challenge in communicating with the public on issues like this one. We write the air marshal schedule, we pay the salaries, we issue the guns yet our word is held with the same esteem or less as a guy wearing a bag over his head or a pilot flying to New York once a day."

I think you have put your finger directly on the largest problem TSA faces - not the threat of terrorism but the lack of trust the agency has with the traveling public.

Sadly, you are entirely correct that TSA's word is less credible than "a guy wearing a bag over his head". Perhaps TSA management might spend some time reflecting on why this is the case. I'll offer a few likely causes: 1) making demonstrably false statements (e.g. ID checking ensures no one on the no fly list gets through security, when "homemade" boarding passes can be printed with any name), 2) unnecessarily hiding behind "that's SSI" when asked legitimate questions regarding procedures, 3) engaging in "mission creep" by questioning persons immigration status or whether they are carrying allegedly illegal (though not prohibited) objects, 4) allowing TSA employees (admittedly a small percentage) to harass flyers and make up rules on the spot with impunity.

I have to say that based on my own experience with TSA and what I've witnessed others endure, I'm inclined to believe the non-TSA person in any dispute. I wish it weren't so but, frankly, TSA has well earned my distrust.

Your not an expert, you are a PR hack. So basically what you just said is

"people who are trying to get information out and risking their careers to do it are less trustworthy than me in my role as a spin doctor"

You have created a catch 22 for any criticism. If they tell the truth you call them liars, fire them (remember no whistleblower protection), and then you tell the people of this country 'trust me'. If they are lying you have the same response.

We clearly told CNN their numbers were inaccurate and they chose to report these numbers anyway.If you would have provided a real rebutle based on real facts they would have run it, or you would have run it on your blog.

"This represents exponentially more than 1 percent and is well into double digits."

Saying 1 raised to any power is still one is kind of a cop out. When ever you're referring to a percentage of a number, then you mention that something is exponentially larger... they're obviously making claims relative to the number generated by the percentage, not the percentage itself...

But.... 1 percent of 28,000 is 280. By saying it's exponentially more than 1 percent means that it would be 280 raised to some exponent. Lets take the smalled whole number exponent that's not 1.... which would be..... 2. 280 raised to the second power (or more simply: 280 x 280) is 78400.

Since there are only 28000 flights each day, it's pretty tough to have people on exponentially more flights than 280 of them.

My point is to not use loaded words like advertisers do just to make your point, when the math behind them will point out that you were only struggling to cover yourself. It might be interpreted as just making the whole statement up.

Let me tell you something as someone who used to be a flying armed police officer and knows a lot about this issue as I have many friends in this agency... I highly suspect that these men are NOT Air Marshals. The Marshals are SICK of flying many flights without any intelligence about the passengers on these flights. In other words, they are being blindly scheduled on various flights based on only how important the airport is to the gov't (like DCA is more critical than Helena, Montana!). That's all the rationale behind the covering of the flight! No intel whatsoever is given to them. Morale is still low even with minor changes that occurred recently. The Marshals actually do not want to fly more than they do already (let stupid CNN study the number of "high risk flights" covered like into/out of DCA, LGA, BOS... they will find that the majority of those are in fact COVERED! All the time.) The Marshals want to INVESTIGATE cases and conduct aiport police duty rather than fly aimlessly. All honest pilots know that the Marshals are having the juices squeezed out of them b/c all that 95% of Marshals do is fly, fly, fly. The public needs to know that they have a couple of guys with guns on board who are often exausted (and bored!!!) to effectively fight the terrorist threat as a result of flying so much. Which makes it more of a hazard to have them on board than not have them! It looks like these men in the video are impostors, perhaps supervisors who are trying to pressure the TSA to make Marshals fly even more that they do now! CNN is a bunch stupid "reporters" who fell for it - for tabloid ratings, of course. Screw the fact that terrorists are watching and taking notes...

Sadly, you are entirely correct that TSA's word is less credible than "a guy wearing a bag over his head". Perhaps TSA management might spend some time reflecting on why this is the case.

Actually, I wouldn't blame TSA management. The problem is with their bosses, who are part of an administration that has compiled a consistently shameful track record of seven years of untruthfulness, incompetence, and contempt for the general public. Based on that track record, any statement from any official representative of any Executive Branch agency must be treated with extreme skepticism. Even if it (perhaps inadvertently) turns out to be true.

Similarly, the pattern we consistently see here of answering any substantive questions or criticism with "We can't tell you because it's classified for National Security reasons, but you'll have to trust us when we say that it's necessary to protect the Homeland" is practically the trademark of this administration. Unfortunately, the administration's track record means there's no reason to trust anything the TSA says or does. If the TSA management actually wants our trust, they will have to do a lot of work to earn it. But I don't think that's possible, at least not under the current administration.

That said, the TSA officials running this blog are most likely telling us the truth, as they understand it. They're also doing the best job they're allowed to do in attempting to put a human face on an agency perhaps justifiably reviled by the public it's supposedly serving. But they're constrained not only by the obligation to parrot the Official Party Line flowed down from the top, but particularly by the administration's fetish for secrecy.

Similarly, most individual screeners at airports are doing the best job they can, from their position at the bottom level of an inept Homeland Security bureaucracy that's flawed from the top down. It's the people at the top who are responsible for what we endure at airports, and for the way we're treated like animals or prisoners. It's the people at the top who transform what may or may not be "robust intelligence" into all those ridiculously arbitrary and stupid rules about liquids and shoes.

The screeners can only implement those rules as best they can. Unfortunately, they bear the brunt of the inevitable passenger outrage at a stupid situation over which they have no more control than the passengers. And, of course, when that's questioned we have the usual pattern of the people at the top denying all accountability and blaming all the problems on "rogue" screeners who are merely implementing flawed policies flowed down from the top.

All this distrust can't possibly be good for security. But it seems we're stuck with it.

I’ll close with the experts out there picking the air marshal. I too thought I was a proficient air marshal spotter until I attended an all hands meeting in Chicago and I was amazed by the reality that all air marshals do NOT look the same at all…Kind of gives you something to think about next time you’re flying, doesn’t it."

I don't need to know what they look like, though there are similarities in dress as their weapons need concealment.

Much more likely than not, at least one (if not both) of the FAM's on board will be sitting in FC, so the universe of possibilities is greatly narrowed.

Eliminate those having alcohol, sleeping, couples or others flying together, children, and those in window seats (to name a few examples) and the universe is narrowed such that the FAM (if one is on board) is fairly easy to pick out.

So it is not only appearance that is important; it is also actions, which are much harder to conceal.

If you want me to believe you instead of CNN, then you have to earn my trust.

Right now, I see a blog that is public relations theater where issues raised are never really addressed. Suggestions are made without even a "Wow, that's a good idea and were going to look into that." Anonymous TSOs pop on here and tell us that we can't have any medication in our carryons without a prescription and you say nary a word of correction. Legitimate questions are asked and either met with silence or we are told the answer is SSI.

No contrition. No humility. No modesty. Just face-saving P.R. or deafening silence.

Christopher said:"We simply don’t want people with bad intentions to know exactly how many flights we cover. I don’t think you’ll hear many arguments against that."

Here is one:you have already told us that more than 5% of flights are covered (meaning air marshal on board), and you say at other points that the percentage number is in the double digits. Based on this, we can assume that this number is somewhere around 10-12%. If it were higher than you would say that more than 10% or more than 15% are covered (it doesn't make any sense to give out numbers that are grossly too low, you don't want terrorists attacks thwarted by air marshals, you want them not to attack at all).

28,000 flights per day implies that there are roughly 3000 air marshals deployed on a given day, according you you. We can quibble over the odd hundred, but that number is probably no more than 10% off. My point is that, if you give us a number and round to, say, the nearest thousand, you give someone with malicious intent no more information than they already have.

"I too thought I was a proficient air marshal spotter until I attended an all hands meeting in Chicago and I was amazed by the reality that all air marshals do NOT look the same at all…Kind of gives you something to think about next time you’re flying, doesn’t it."Christopher, it's not the look that gives them away, it's the walk of shame. As a former FAM, my issue isn't with the numbers of flights covered, it's that it is blatantly obvious when FAMs are on board and when they aren't. If the FAM team complies with the boarding procedure policy to the letter, every observent person on that plane will know who they are. There is no way around that, and I still feel for my brothers and sisters in the air because of it. That's the real issue, not flight coverage numbers.

I AM A FEDERAL AGENT AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM ON COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT. MY SPOUSE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF AMERICAN AIRLINES. AS SUCH, I OFTEN TRAVEL IN A "NON-REVENUE" CAPACITY. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO AMERICAN AIRLINES, I AM NOT AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM IN A NON-REVENUE CAPACITY. HERE IS THE KICKER...I CAN WALK UP TO THE TICKET COUNTER...PURCHASE A TICKET..AND AMAZINGLY, I BECOME AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A FIREARM. LAST I CHECKED, AMERICAN AIRLINES LOST TWO PLANES RESULTING IN THE DEATHS OF THOUSANDS. ONE WOULD THINK AMERICAN AIRLINES WOULD WELCOME AN ARMED FEDERAL AGENT, NOT OBSTRUCT ONE. SHAME ON AMERICAN AIRLINES AND THEIR POLICIES...AND SHAME ON THE TSA FOR ALLOWING FOR NOT CHALLENGING THIS RIDICOLOUS POLICY TO STAND.

You may have "worked with CNN for weeks" on the story but Ben Arnold asked not whether you cooperated, he asked why nobody from TSA would go on camera and answer CNN's charges. Let us see on screen the faceless bureaucrats who so breathlessly label as myths CNN's charges but refuse to look into a camera and let the flying public decide for themselves who's telling the truth.

This blog should supplement, not supplant, TSA's responses on media outlets. If you run and respond to every media report here on this blog instead of putting one of TSA's taxpayer funded executives on camera, this becomes merely an instrument of propaganda, rather than a legitimate instrument to provide the public with information.

This is only the tip of the iceberg on the Air Marshal story. Let us assume there are only one or two percent of domestic flights covered by a Federal Air Marshal team on any given day.

What are the issues in hiring and retaining quality people? Why do Federal Air Marshals not respect their management.

I remember seeing the past FAM Director referring to his FAMS as "peabrains" and "fleas" when they were speaking out against corruption. This is documented in the mainstream media. Has the mismanagement been eradicated or is it just in a more hidden form now?

The TSA states they were working with CNN on the story. Why were officials bragging they were going to perform a reversal on this story and prove CNN wrong before it aired?

The real story seems to be how the FAMS ever got to this point. I hope CNN follows up with such stories as I do not expect TSA to tell the public the state of affairs in this blog or elsewhere.

Please tell us the story behind the numbers CNN.

Please pray often for your airport screeners. They do a very difficult, vital and thankless job. I could never do their job, but we need good people to tirelessly do it every day. The better our screeners perform, the safer we all are.

The answer is simple. Abolish the TSA and let the airlines themselves determine what security best serves their aircraft and their customers.

It would be very efficient to have at least one crew member trained to the standards required by the airline and their insurance company, armed and ready. Very likely the insurance company would require more than one on any given flight.

An airline might also choose to allow anyone not legally barred from carrying arms to do so. This takes care of retired LEO, active service military, people with CCWs, etc.

Given the statistical results of 30 years of wide-spread legal CCW (concealed carry weapon) licenses in the hands of common citizens, I would far more trust someone with a CCW than a professional LEO.

And gee, all that and not one cent in cost to taxpayers. A win-win situation, in fact, since the entire budget of the TSA would be eliminated.

When you have a credibility problem, as indeed the TSA has, you shouldn't shy away from the media -- you need to jump into the hot seat and speak up for yourselves. It looks to me like the TSA thought they wouldn't run the story without on-camera participation. That's a bad bluff you just lost, deservedly so.

As regards to the public being savaged by some TSA inspectors without recourse, I think (a) you might consider an independent ombudsman to investigate and arbitrate complaints, (b) 24/7 recorded audio and video coverage of screening areas and (c) pre-printed cards which TSA officials MUST hand out on request, stating the officer's name, whom to contact about complaints plus a time stamp to track back to the recordings.

Airlines could give classes on airline security and make it possible for people who meet a qualification standard to become certified as airline security personnel(for instance).

They wouldn't be able to carry a weapon; but they would be trained in how to identify suspicious activity and also how to deal with it.

The airlines could offer a flying discount to everyone that's certified. This way, everyday people and the airlines will be a part of the solution, rather than depending on the government to do it for them.

This doesn't eliminate the need for air marshalls; but it would increase security at a reduced cost. Just an idea!

re: Chance said... If someone is going to slam you (TSA) why not stand up and refute the claims publicly?

So this blog isn't public?

Well I guess you can pick the fly dung out of the pepper but the comment questioned why TSA would not take the opportunity for the much larger audience presented by CNN than this blog to state their case.

Yes, both are public, but which one is seen by the most people?

How many people saw the TSA reponse posted here as compared to the CNN report?

Do senior managers at TSA feel that they got their message out to the widest possible audience and won their case?

Just wanted to extend the debate a little. We’ve been asked on a few occasions about how we determine the percent of flights “covered.” To the uninitiated, “covered” means there’s a team of air marshals onboard. We have been asked if this includes other armed federal, state and local law enforcement officers. The simple answer is no. To determine the number of flights we cover, we use only our air marshals."

Christopher,

You say that "covered" only includes air marshals, but FFDO's are not specifically mentioned as being excluded in your prior sentence. If an FFDO is on duty on the aircraft and there is no FAM, do you consider that flight to be "covered"?

"While the exact number of marshals is classified, a report on the Airline Pilots Security Alliance Web site says,'The current air marshal force, 2,200 officers working in teams, protects only 5 to 10 percent of daily flights, if that.' The alliance says that's down from a peak of 4,000."

And from a few years ago after the ramp-up (but probably fewer now with net FAM losses):

"Thomas Quinn, director of the Federal Air Marshal Service, dismissed press reports that the agency was covering only 3 percent to 4 percent of commercial flights in the United States on a daily basis. Although he declined to give specifics, Quinn said his agents cover 'more than 5 percent' of some 28,000 daily commercial flights in the United States."

I would think that if Quinn believed the number to be 10% or higher, he would have said so. Going from 3 percent to "more than 5 percent" is just not that significant of a difference.

If someone is going to slam you (TSA) why not stand up and refute the claims publicly?

So this blog isn't public?

Yes its public but the larger point was that they should respond to CNN with CNN not respond with their spin on their terms.

Many of you simply don't believe the info we have provided, so I fail to see how presenting the info to CNN (which was done) is any differant than presenting it here from a credibility standpoint.

Well I guess you can pick the fly dung out of the pepper but the comment questioned why TSA would not take the opportunity for the much larger audience presented by CNN than this blog to state their case.

The CNN report I read links directly to our mythbusters page, which gives our response. So, everyone who reads the report has the oppurtunity to click on that link and read the response.

To me, it seems like these particular criticisms are a distinction without a difference.

Michael Medley said...Airlines could give classes on airline security and make it possible for people who meet a qualification standard to become certified as airline security personnel(for instance). They wouldn't be able to carry a weapon; but they would be trained in how to identify suspicious activity and also how to deal with it. The airlines could offer a flying discount to everyone that's certified. This way, everyday people and the airlines will be a part of the solution, rather than depending on the government to do it for them. This doesn't eliminate the need for air marshalls; but it would increase security at a reduced cost. Just an idea!

Actually, that is a very interesting idea, at least to me. Many Law Enforcement Organizations have citizen auxillery patrols (I once worked with a person who was a member of such an organization.

I don't know if this is practical to implement, but I will bring it up on our Idea Factory.

That's not a bad idea which is why it will be totally ignored.

One thing I love about this blog, it teaches me I'm not the most cynical person out there.

I'd love to hear American Airlines explanation for not allowing Federal Law Enforcement Officers (ex..FAMS, DEA, FBI, ATF, USSS, ICE) to fly armed in a "non-revenue" status. Perhaps the TSA or bloggers can query American Airlines for this explanation.

First I must comment on the statements of Bob Robertson above. He claims he would trust the average person with a Concealed Carry permit more than a trained law enforcement officer to protect an aircraft. WHAT?

I want FAMs on flights and I want more of them. I want their standards to stay high and not be decreased on the range or elsewhere. The public deserves the best protection that can be provided.

I hope the FAMS would go back to giving psychological screenings to prospective Air Marshals. We need people who have the correct mentality and temperment to handle this task.

Finally, I have a comment/question for the blog staff to answer. (This is probably going to require another retraction and change. Sorry blog team.)

How did the FAMS transfer and move around 200 Air Marshals from the Las Vegas office in a couple years? The FAMS does not have a mobility agreement. Air Marshals cannot simply be moved from one office to another. There are voluntary, no cost to the gov't, transfers - but how do you say 200 paid their own way to leave Las Vegas? Sounds like there is a large attrition issue in Vegas for sure.

I would be more apt to trust or believe TSA if someone from the Air Marshal Service went on CNN live on air to answer some questions. I understand some questions would not be answered due to security concerns. There are tons of questions here to be answered. The taxpayers deserve to know the truth.

I'm confused. Christopher says that the information he stated and later restated was mistaken, but then goes on to lament that he should never have given out sensitive information in the first place. Let's break this down:

- If the information was incorrect, then Christopher did not disclose any information and did nothing inappropriate except make a mistake.

- If the information was correct but not for public disclosure, Christopher's edited post is unnecessary because the cat's out of the bag.

What I was apologizing for in the post was ever discussing the percentage of flights covered. As I said, it is simply not appropriate to discuss percentages of flights covered nor expound on the percent any further.

Let’s face it, the pubilc is never going to have proof here. TSA is saying they CAN’T prove themselves right because the information is classified/confidential/SSI or whatever; CNN doesn’t HAVE to prove it because gullible people let them get away with quoting anonymous sources.

So, let’s look at motive. What possible motive would TSA have for lying about FAM coverage on flights? Make themselves look better? Thwart/confuse terrorists? If it’s the former, it clearly isn’t working and doesn’t matter to all the armchair critics out there. Congress is privy to the classified information. Trust me, they won’t let this go. (Oh, that’s right, we don’t trust Congress either.) And, if TSA’s motive is the latter (thwarting terrorists) …well…you go, TSA – you’re doing your job!

Motive for CNN? Sensationalism stirs up controversy, sells news and grabs headlines. As a journalism major, you’d think I would trust the media. But, I have seen them get the story wrong so many times, I just don’t trust them and take everything I read or hear in the news with a grain of salt. Let’s face it, everyone has their bias – and it’s real easy to do a hit piece by quoting anonymous sources. The reporter doesn’t have to actually PROVE ANYTHING when he quotes anonymous sources.

Some reporters seem to try to be objective; others don't seem to care whether a piece is balanced or not. Sometimes it is clear they are just lazy or ignorant of the facts. I know a reporter who used to make up sources.

Am I glad we have the media? Are they critical to our way of life? Aboslutely! Do I "trust" the media to always get the story right? No way, man!

This could turn out being a great story for TSA. The FAMS does not control how many dollars they get each year to hire and train new Air Marshals. Maybe some Congressmen are out there watching and will give them the money to add more personnel and make us all safer?????

We need more highly qualified people to become Air Marshals and protect civil aviation.

If we had some more, maybe TSA would stop hiding behind this pseudo-classified nonsense they claim when they talk about numbers. If the number of Air Marshals were classified, there would be no comment whatsoever on percentages, numbers or anything related by the TSA. They say it is Sensitive Security Information, which is too often used to hide an embarrassing fact.

Any truth to the rumor that TSO's are being converted into Federal Air Marshals?

Now that is a frightening thought. Some SCOs I've met I would never, ever trust with a weapon. Not only would they likely hurt themselves with it, but out of a fit of rage would use it on someone who got in their way.

March 27, 2008 7:38 PMAnonymous said... Any truth to the rumor that TSO's are being converted into Federal Air Marshals?

Now that is a frightening thought. Some SCOs I've met I would never, ever trust with a weapon. Not only would they likely hurt themselves with it, but out of a fit of rage would use it on someone who got in their way.

TSOs are not being converted, however they are able to compete for the positions when they open up.

Many TSOs have applied and joined the ranks of the FAMs. In fact, one of the TSOs graduated at the top of his FAM class.

As long as the TSA is failing at a rate of 60 - 70% of bomb tests, they are not, NOT, doing their job.

I still don't understand the great concern about getting on the plane when if anyone has flown internationally from a major airport (ohare in my experience) knows the bottle neck before the checkpoints is as much if not more of an issue.

@AbelardReading another forum discussing the nipple rings, a poster claiming to be an employee of the TSA is claiming SOP regulations that are SSI but contradict what is posted on the TSA website regarding why this woman was forced to remove her piercings.curious to know what is the truth.

Anonymous said... "As long as the TSA is failing at a rate of 60 - 70% of bomb tests, they are not, NOT, doing their job"

You do realize the machines are the ones failing not the TSO's. I think Tsa should raise the security fee so they can buy more updated equipement.such as:the Millimeter wave

And Cleveland has a machine called the COBRA where you dont need to take out your laptop. its an improvement but i've been taking my laptop out of my bag for over 10 years why dont you guys invest in a machine that can detect liquid explosives.I read that Tsa is testing "Guardian Technologies' PinPoint software" which pretty much detects everything in your bag. I think these 2 technologies would help TSA more because the TSO wouldn't have to touch the pax and the x-ray machine would do all the work of looking at the images.

Because I hope one day when I go to the Airport and get to security I will see the TSO's more like Custom Agents. The way they should be precieved and respected.

Anonymous said... "I would be more apt to trust or believe TSA if someone from the Air Marshal Service went on CNN live on air to answer some questions. I understand some questions would not be answered due to security concerns. There are tons of questions here to be answered. The taxpayers deserve to know the truth."

Yes the tax payers deserve to know the truth but know one else in the world should know anything about our nations security. So there is no way secure the nation if we tell everyone else every detail of our security. I for one think TSA and everyother Gov agency tells us way to much.

So if you can find a way for TSA to tell every American citizen all of their SSI/classified info with out anyone else ever finding out. Let them know because then I'm sure if your idea makes sense they will let us all know.

Until then TSA should not say anything to anyone except take off your shoes. Thats all we need to know

To the TSA BLOG team,Just so you guys know, no matter what TSA does they are alway going to be underminded and thought to be worthless.Lets make up a situation: Say a TSO was hand wanding a pax and found an IED and stop a terrorist attack and no one was hurt and when the Aviation Security Inspectors question the terrorist he gives up the location of Osama then the military goes in and captures him.What would the public say about TSA then... This is what they would say "well the TSA Ticket Checkers should of stop him before he made it to the screening area"

Okay now lets have the same situation but the Ticket Checker notices something funny with the terrorists ID and refers him for secondary screening TSA find the IED, the ASI"s find out where Osama is, the Military catches him. Now What would the public say about TSA... This is what they would say "Well the BDO's should of stop him before he even made it to the ticket checkers."

OK one more time same situation. But this a BDO notice the Terrorist and questions him he find the IED, The ASI's find out where Osama is and the Military catches him.

What would the public say about now TSA... This is what they would say "The TSA should of used their telecenisis powers to know monthes in advance so the terrorist never made to the airport.

So you see TSA no matter what you do you will never get the credit you deserve and you will always be in the wrong. But from me Thank you and if it take 7 hours to get through security as long as I land where I'm suppose to land and I'm in one peice I'm gonna always say Thank You to each Screener I meet.

One suggestion though with your Diamond Lanes: Can you make an Express Lane where if a Pax has no bag they can use. Think shoes off, jacket off, keys and cell phone. you'll have 1000's of pax through security in a minute.And I travel alot I know that my colleagues and I will start checking all our bags if there was an incentive to do so because right now there is no logical reason to check a bag when the airline do not enforce their 2 carry-on ruleJust my thoughts,KBC

LOS ANGELES (CBS 5 / AP) ― A Texas woman who claims she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.

The D.C./Baltimore Metro area flys nearly 60,000 people each day. There are millions of commercial domestic flights in the U.S. each year. To suggest any governmental agency has the ability to police them effectively is laughable.

As a frequent flier, do I feel safer since TSA came into being? In a word, No! Does it matter, also no.

If a terrorist or some other nut job decides to be disruptive; he or she will. It's a reality that comes with modern life.

What I do expect is that even a governmental agency, notorious for it inefficiency, would eventually improve the system. Five years later, its not better, its worse. As a frequent flier, I have a greater appreciation for Russians who cued for bread when the Soviets were in power.

This administrations response to terror is a joke. Policing agencies remain separated by budget envy. We are fighting a war against the wrong enemy for the wrong reason. Evidence the fact that Ben Laden is still alive while 7000 good Americans are not.

Me thinks thou does protest too much. My vote goes with CNN. The more interesting statistic would be : "What percentage of TSA line workers could hold a job with equal pay in the private sector." In my company, probably a number equal to the percentage of daily flights with a Marshall on board.

A suggestion to KBC - quit before you fall even further behind. Your "examples" of the TSA leading to the capture of OBL are inane and leave you looking like nothing but a fool.

I find it very sad that there are people like you out there who are so afraid, so afraid that they don't hesitate to give up their rights and dignity and apparently believe everything the government tells them.

"the tax payers deserve to know the truth but know one else in the world should know anything about our nations security."

This is an impossibility. We have to work under the assumption that others can, have, and will continue to find out about our security procedures.

"So there is no way secure the nation if we tell everyone else every detail of our security."

People know every detail of how the tumbler lock works, yet we still rely upon it to secure things because it is effective regardless of whether the attacker understands its inner workings. Using a lock provides much more effective security than trying to keep the location of your valuables secret -- especially when you must share the secret with thousands of employees doing a job with as high a turnover rate as that of TSA TSO.

In most cases, relying upon secrecy surrounding your methods will lead to failure, because it's nearly impossible to keep those secrets from getting out.

Consider how many people now work as screeners for the TSA. It only takes one disgruntled ex-TSA-screener (or one who is offered more money than he can refuse by someone who wants to get some information out of him) to nullify the effects of secrecy surrounding the work they do.

"I for one think TSA and everyother Gov agency tells us way to much."

You're far more confident that power does not breed corruption than I am. Perhaps you should study what has happened in the past when people were subject to rulers who operated in secrecy.

Blah blah blah. Different numbers, different excuses. It's a secret, it's not a secret... you never get a straight answer out of the TSA. Chris, do you think we're idiots? It's becoming more and more clear that this blog is yet more theater. Giving the appearance of an honest dialog with citizens when really it's just another way to get the latest spin on the latest TSA-created problems out to the people likeliest to tear you apart for your idiotic mistakes. You guys are liars, and when you're not lying outright you're saying you can't answer or that the answer is too sensitive for us regular people to hear. This blog is a farce.

I suggest that the TSA immediately move to sue CNN and any other media organization that dares to lie and misstate facts. Of course, any such court proceeding would necessitate revealing said facts. Surely, though, the TSA can do that, right? It can show that what CNN has stated is wrong, can't it? Surely every word your organization isn't fear mongering and designed for consumption by the rubes who still think that Iraq had WMDs, or that folks are going to blow up planes using their shoes!

Oh no, we've been dared! Can't back down from a dare, can we? Call the lawyers immediately!

How about you concentrate your efforts on addressing the hundreds of unanswered questions and legitimate concerns posted here? You guys have a huge backlog. Otherwise just shut down the blog so we can at least know we're not being listened to instead of just suspecting it. You guys can do better.

Well. From personal experince, I will take just about anyone's word before I will believe main stream media outlets like CNN.

Back before there was CNN, there was CBS. On a nice day in 1983, I tuned into the news at noon and was told I was dead. When I called in to inform the news anchor that "The reports of my death were greatly exaggerated", I was told that she already knew it, but reported it anyway - and didn't even feel obligated to apologize!

Now, the TSA isn't perfect, I sent a criticism of a particular spot/agent in this week. (It is a training issue for that spot/agent) But that is a far cry from the blatent lies we get from the likes of CNN day in and day out.

I want to take a moment and recap your myth busting and point out a few things that I thought were interesting.

CNN aired a story on Anderson Cooper 360 from investigative reporter Drew Griffin on the federal air marshal service. In the piece, anonymous air marshals, pilots and other "experts" discuss "staggering" attrition rates and make assertions that less than 1 percent of flights are actually covered by air marshals. Below are the facts on how we deploy air marshals, air marshal attrition rates, and the reality behind this highly successful program.

## Point 1: This is the only point which I intent to take personally. Your agency/department/administration is a PR nightmare. You are the thorn in my side when I travel. Many of your rules are asinine. (I'm still waiting to see a binary explosive that can be mixed up in a lavatory. Indeed, nail files were banned for YEARS by you breaucrats, did you have a credible threat based on them? Let's pass by the fact that 100ml of a liquid is "too much") Some of your staff feel comfortable taking the rules into their own hands, as the latest incident with the nipple rings has shown. I await a macbook style blog entry on that. Your defining action is to "Prohibit, then consider the repercussions, but only if people complain." Your response to criticism is "Sorry, Secret Information. I'd LOVE to tell you why you are wrong, if it didn't threaten national security." This is coming from people who are taking away my toothpaste! Your model of protection involves making travelers into defenseless sheep, kept in the dark. One of the founders of our country clearly dismissed this model when he said that people who would give up liberty for security deserved neither. We made it through the cold war without much loss of liberty and privacy, and the stakes there were infinitely higher. It seems very clear what you are asking me to do. Rather than enabling citizens to handle threats, you desire, nay, teach helplessness and trust in a flawed system.

Your budget increases as people become more afraid. What, then, are your motives? ##

## Point 2: Let's be honest. You are trying to pass yourself of as an expert, and you too are anonymous. If I check out the "Meet our Bloggers" page, I find a dearth information that is able to establish your bonifides. ##

## Point 3: While we are being liberal with quotation marks, let's include a brace around "highly sucessful." The only data I have on the success of this program is from what I hear in the news, and the only incident that comes to mind is when a flight marshal shot and killed a man in Miami who was off his meds. So far as I know, that is the only reported case of a flight marshal intentionally using a gun on an airplane. If you have other verifiable data to determine sucess, please share it. ##

Myths:"Of the 28,000 commercial airline flights per day in the U.S., less than 1 percent are protected by federal air marshals." "I would have to guess it's fewer than 1 percent of all my flights," the pilot said. "I'm guessing by coverage of when I go to those cities, fewer than 1 percent." "That means that a terrorist or other criminal bent on taking over an aircraft would be confronted by a trained air marshal on as few as 280 daily flights." "One pilot who crisscrosses the country and flies internationally told CNN he hasn't seen an air marshal on board one of his flights in six months. A federal law enforcement officer with is not affiliated with the air marshal service...has gone months without seeing a marshal on board."

## Point 4: I agree that as things have been presented to me, this is anecdotal evidence. Generally a few anecdotes are insufficient to draw a final conclusion, but can be used to frame the scope of the problem. A large number of anecdotes grouped together ARE data. I agree that we do not have enough data for our final conclusion. I'll be suggesting that my folks in congress look into it. ##

Buster:While the exact number of flights that air marshals protect is classified because we don't want terrorists to play a mathematical guessing game based on percentages, the actual number of air marshals employed by the agency is in the thousands.

## Point 5a: Let's play a mathematical guessing game. If I "guess" that 10% of flight are "covered" in the sense used by CNN (someone with a gun, be it air marshal, flight crew, or someone else who is "approved"). Joe Q. Terrorist is coordinating four teams, kind of like in September 2001, spooky. What are the odds that AT LEAST 'X' teams will be on "uncovered" planes? The answer is simple, and large. For X=4 (all planes are uncovered), the probability is 65%, for X=3, 94%; for X=2, 99%. X=1, 99.99% The odds that ALL teams are covered: 0.01%. Any gambler would take those odds. TSA, on the other hand, can't afford em, not even with your budget. So what's to be done? ##

Beyond the number of flights that air marshals physically cover, the more important question to ask is which flights are air marshals flying on. Using our intelligence-driven, risk-based approach, we deploy marshals on the highest risk flights. That means a team of air marshals might be on one flight based on intel and none may be on the next.

## Point 5b: Nice Work! (Hypotheticly, of course.) I'm guessing that you cranked the odds of being covered on my four flights to 80%. (Please note that this must be at the expense of other flights!) Now the odds are as follows: X=4, 0.16% (that looks reasonable); X=3, 2.6% (a bit higher than I'd like, but tolerable); X=2, 17.6% (This looks bad fellas); X=1, 57%! I remind you that Joe Q. T. wins if ONE team gets through. The odds of the only acceptable option, catching all four teams, is 41%. Things look grim, especially if Joe's teams can identify the flight marshal (which can be done, I am told) and abort the whole scheme to try again. On a related note, What if terrorists suddenly decided to start targeting small towns and suburbs? Regional jets may be much less trouble to hijack than large jetliners. ##

Simply parroting a sound bite from an anonymous expert or a pilot that flies to New York once a day with no knowledge of scheduling or intel isn't accurately portraying the situation. Random "experts" hardly encompass a qualified opinion on air marshal deployments. The bottom line is that there are thousands of hard-working, dedicated marshals flying day in and day out to protect the traveling public both domestically and abroad. We clearly told CNN their numbers were inaccurate and they chose to report these numbers anyway.

## I refer you to point 2. You seem to be indicating that anonomous experts are not to be trusted. Would you kindly list your full name and credentials? ##

Myth:"Air marshals who spoke with CNN anonymously...are especially troubled by the lack of coverage on flight in and out of Washington and New York."

Buster:Flying air marshals speaking on condition of anonymity simply do not have access to global scheduling information. Every single day of the year, air marshal schedules are altered to cover specific, high-threat flights. That means on one day, many flights into and out of New York and D.C. may be covered and on other days, less flights may be covered.

## Point 6: Do you have access to such info? Can you offer me any proof that you are not parroting what comes down from "on high?" ##

The role of not releasing specific numbers of marshals or flights carrying marshals is an important one. We should not tip our hand to terrorists and let them know the mathematical probability of air marshals being on flights they may be interested in taking over or otherwise disrupting. We fully desire terrorists to not know for sure if marshals will be on board their flight so that they will have to factor them into any plots involving aircraft.

## I refer you to Point 5: I'm pretty sure that there are terrorists that can both do math and make educated guesses as to your staffing apabilities. Also, passengers can spot air marshals, as several commenters have already pointed out. Why not terrorists? ##

Myth:"Air marshals told CNN that while the TSA tells the public it cannot divulge numbers...the agency tells its own agents that at least 5 percent of all flights are covered." "One marshal said that while security is certainly one reason the numbers are kept secret, he believes the agency simply doesn't want taxpayers to know the truth." "...the average taxpayer understands there's no physical way to protect every single flight everywhere," the air marshal said. "But it's such a small percentage. It's just very aggravating for us"

Buster:Today, the number of air marshals TSA employs is in the thousands. We know this because we build the schedule and we assign these air marshals to flights all over the world each and every day.

## Point 7: Others have said this already: You say that you employ thousands, if we are optomistic, say 5000 (3000 is probably closer), and you work them 5 days a week, you are already down to 3580 Air Marshals available per day. On average, about 4% of those will be on vacation of some sort. That leaves approximately 3440. There are 28000 daily flights. If your marshals each cover one flight per day, you have barely broken 12%. That's our best case scenario. If we run the same numbers for 3000 air marshals, you have about 7%. Now, back to the statistics of Point 5. . . ##

Myth:"Sources inside the air marshal field offices told CNN that the program has been unable to stem the losses of trained air marshals since the program's numbers peaked in 2003."

Buster:Federal air marshal service attrition rates have been approximately 6.5 percent since the program expanded after 9/11. This isn't an exodus by any means and is comparable to other federal law enforcement agencies. The job does require extensive travel, a high level of alertness for hours on end and one of the highest firearms qualifications standards in government. Being an air marshal isn't for everyone but that should not detract from the thousands of dedicated public servants out flying today and every day to protect the traveling public.

## Point 8: First, I think you misuse the word myth here. Nothing in your "myth" suggests that we are detracting from the service of your air marshals. We certainly appreciate their thankless job. If any insult is implied, it is towards those who misrepresent the Air Marshals as providing more protection than is possible for the available staff. Attrition rates are independent of our respect. You bill yourself as a professional, and should not resort to this form of argument. That said, it seems pointless for you to claim this attrition rate is fine, without giving the rate at which people are hired. If you can't hire poeple because the job is miserable, then 6.5% is a problem. If you are hiring 8%, you are fine. HOwever, I suspect that you are not permitted to tell us that. ##

Myth:"They are whistling past the graveyard, hoping against hope that this house of cards that they call airline security doesn't come crashing down around them," said David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance.

Buster:This insulting little sound bite discounts the dedicated service thousands of air marshals provide every day. While air marshals are an important layer of security, they are hardly the only thing stopping a terrorist from taking over an airplane. There are a full 20 layers of security, each vulnerable by itself but combined providing the highest level of security in the history of this nation.

## Please refer to point 8. Again, no one is insulting the Air Marshals. If any one is being insulted, it is the bueaucrats who run your organization, and think that they can protect a group of ignorant citizens better than a group of informed citizen can protect themselves. ##

## Point 9: I suggest that you look at your 20 layers of security, and tell me what are the minimum and maximum number of layers that could apply to a flight, as well as each layer's robustness. I haven't had time to write up a detailed reply, but I have been counting Federal Flight Deck Officers as coverage. That puts your max down to 19. Hardened cocpit doors was coming regardless, I'm not sure you can take credit for that. Passengers are a layer, but no thanks to the TSA. If I saw some passenger training, or a seatback instruction card, I might be more charitable. I suspect that there is some substantial overlap between "Canine," "Checked Baggage," and "Bomb Appraisal Officers," or between the "No-Fly List" and "Travel Document Checking," but I don't claim to know all the details. If you want me to write an article on the robustness of each layer too, let me know. I can probably find plenty of examples of failure. ##

Myth:"CNN was told staffing in Dallas, Texas for instance is down 44 percent from its high, while Seattle, Washington, has 40 percent fewer agents. Las Vegas, Nevada, which had as many as 245 air marshals, this past February had only 47."

Buster:Staffing in specific offices like Dallas, Seattle and Las Vegas has changed over the six years of the program BUT these air marshals have been shifted to other offices, not eliminated and not replaced.

%% Point 10: Again, I think you are misusing "myth" someone at CNN WAS clearly told that this was the case. Another commenter has pointed out that FAMs don't have a relocation provision. It does seem suspicious that so many would have voluntarially moved away from prime areas like Seattle and Las Vegas. More data is needed. The only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that they were not replaced. %%

No, the real question is what form of petulant revenge will the TSA and the Bush Administration take against the reporter, Anderson Cooper, and CNN for daring to question one of their most visible symbols of power?

I see some new additions to various terrorist watch lists in the near future. After all, if you're not with us, you're a terrorist.

TSOs are able to "compete" for positions "when" they open up? It was my understanding one must have law enforcement experience to be able to "compete" for what was touted as an elite law enforcement agency. Are TSO's considered to be law enforcement officers? As to the "when", with 6% attrition(and I'm giving TSA the benefit of the doubt here) Wouldn't there be an open, continual announcement?

Christopher, maybe CNN is full of it and is chasing ratings. I will give you the benefit of that doubt. The problem is that the TSA isn't transparent in areas it could and should be. The rules are also arbitrary and being a government agency, it's our right to DEMAND accountability from your agency. People have asked some really good questions on this blog and often the response is, just trust us. I'm sorry, but I can't trust the government. It's been written into my DNA as an American.

I'm more and more convinced that this blog is a PR piece and the TSA has no interest in changing. I'd suggest that everyone here write their congressmen or the news media. The more scrutiny the TSA receives, the more transparent is will have to become. It's obvious to me the TSA cares more about its bureaucracy than it does meaningful and logcial safety measures. If this weren't the case, we'd hear more about rogue agents being fired.

I'm more and more convinced that this blog is a PR piece and the TSA has no interest in changing. I'd suggest that everyone here write their congressmen or the news media. The more scrutiny the TSA receives, the more transparent is will have to become.

How about we hear directly from Kip Hawley on this blog. He wrote the first blog post and now that there have been probably 100,000 hits and who knows how many comments, mostly critical of the TSA, let's hear what the man in charge has to say to the things that seem to come up over and over here that seem to go unanswered such as:

1) The lack of transparency of the rules at the checkpoints

2) The lack on consistency of the rules from airport to airport

3) The ridiculous liquids ban

4) The needless continuation of the shoe removal protocol

5) The high attrition rate for TSOs and low hiring standards for new TSOs

6) The problem of theft from checked baggage and what TSA is doing about it

7) How specifically the TSA has made us any safer than we were pre 9/11 and given the American public value for its tax dollar over and above what we were getting for the money we were paying in our ticket price to the airlines when they were paying the freight for security

8) What TSA's management is doing to polish up its tarnished image

9) Why TSA ought to be taken seriously as a credible agency

Let Kip take the heat directly from the public for once. Oh that's right, he does not fly commercial so he does not see any of this as a problem.

Friend,Hate to disagree with you,“Christopher, maybe CNN is full of it and is chasing ratings. I will give you the benefit of that doubt. The problem is that the TSA isn't transparent in areas it could and should be. The rules are also arbitrary and being a government agency, it's our right to DEMAND accountability from your agency. People have asked some really good questions on this blog and often the response is, just trust us. I'm sorry, but I can't trust the government. It's been written into my DNA as an American.”Demand all you want, I for one am glad TSA is protecting the air marshals. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out they are not on every flight, just too many flights in a day. If TSA told you where the good guys are and how many there are I bet the bad guys would strike somewhere else or come up with a real messy plan to overcome the air marshals.The CNN story said deployment was risk based. Good enough for me!If you want to be on the flight that the terrorists know does not have air marshals be my guest, I would rather be on the flight where the bad guys are still guessing.As for CNN, have they not heard the old saying: “There is never a cop around when you need one.” So where is the news in all of this? There are never enough police. I did not know their ratings were doing so badly.

You (TSA) currently run in a defensive posture. You could have 1000 times the layers of security you currently have and not make flying any safer than it was on 9/10. This relates to the fact that once the bad guys figure out your operation they can act to side step the provisions you've put into place. You won't have security unless you ground all aircraft.

To make your job easier stop treating everyone like they're terrorists and concentrate on detecting explosives and weapons. Also stop trying to be LEOs. You guys aren't LEOs.

I like the Registered Traveler program. It's a pain at the start, but the benefits far outshine the trouble. It should be expanded.

No matter how many Air Marshals there are, they cannot be on every single flight. You need to look into allowing law enforcement, and trained citizens to carry a sidearm onboard. Extend training to pilots and flight staff so they can armed.

I am new to this blog, and I admit I am not a computer person. But after reading some of the rude things people are saying, and after a lengthy conversation with an old friend in the union, I felt I had to provide some input. Since Winston Smith has been kind enough to gather some of the comments I will use his remarks as a guide.

1) The lack of transparency of the rules at the checkpoints

I have no trouble with the rules when I fly. I do not find them to be hidden or difficult to understand. The last time I flew, I asked a TSA person to assist me with the liquid rules. He very helpfully guided me through preparing.

2) The lack on consistency of the rules from airport to airport

As an educator it is obvious to me that the problem with consistency is one of training. It looks very much to me as if the screeners are overworked and struggling to keep up. My friend in the AFGE told me that the number of screeners employed by TSA is set by Congress, based upon five year old passenger data. And since then TSA has been trying to meet the demands of the public by broadening thier coverage, which has taken screeners away from thier first mission. In other words it appears that there are not enough screeners to handle the steady increase in the number of passengers. That in turn would imply a difficulty in having time for refresher training.

3) The ridiculous liquids ban

I am convinced that it is possible to create a hazard to an aircraft with seemingly innocuous liquids. Something had to be done to limit that possibility. I might also point out that the phrasing of this question by Mr. Smith seems to indicate his lack of objectivity.

4) The needless continuation of the shoe removal protocol

Is anyone but me old enough to remember Max Smart's shoe phone? Or Jim West's shoe gun? Or Rosa Kleb's shoe knife? Yes, these are examples from fiction. However as popular media images they make the point that hiding things in shoes has been an obvious trick for a very long time. If the fiction images are unpalatable, then be aware that allied pilots in WWII hid escape tools in thier shoes.

5) The high attrition rate for TSOs and low hiring standards for new TSOs

My friend in the AFGE told me that screeners have not seen a pay raise since the organization was created five years ago, because Congress barred them from the Government Service pay system. In addition the pay-for-performance system that Congress requires of them is so unhandy and complicated that it keeps good screeners from earning what little pay incentives there may be to stay with TSA. And Congress has barred TSA screeners from being unionized.So they have too few screeners, too poorly paid, berated by the public they are trying to serve, and with no recourse to redress thier greivances. Under those circumstances, I would prefer to find other work as well. The irony is that these are precisely the problems that Congress originally intended the creation of TSA to solve.

6) The problem of theft from checked baggage and what TSA is doing about it

I do not understand why this point is brought up so much. Even a cursory glance at the baggage system makes it obvious that TSA screeners have little opportunity to steal, while airline employees have a great deal of opportunity to do so. I know people who had things taken from thier luggage long before TSA was created. Continuing to bring this up appears to me to be a deliberate effort on the part of someone to shift the blame from the airlines to TSA.

7) How specifically the TSA has made us any safer than we were pre 9/11 and given the American public value for its tax dollar over and above what we were getting for the money we were paying in our ticket price to the airlines when they were paying the freight for security

I do not fly as much now as I did when I was younger. But I do remember what security was like before TSA. I didn't realize it at the time, because I had nothing to compare it to then, but I see now that the old security was quite bad. When the airlines were "paying the frieght" they paid as little as possible. Before TSA most airport security content itself with quickly checking for a few obvious things. Baggage was never checked. And security was never allowed to interfere with "important" things such as the comfort of first class passengers or departure times. Even if some screeners today are not doing all that they should, they are still doing much more than was done before.

8) What TSA's management is doing to polish up its tarnished image

I have read that this blog was created in order to provide a forum for communication between the public and the TSA. As I review the entrys, I find that a handful of nay-sayers are ruining it for everyone. Perhaps, there are problems with some screeners. I haven't had any problems, but there are a fair number of anechdotes. Perhaps it would help if this blog were allowed to be used for its intended purpose.

9) Why TSA ought to be taken seriously as a credible agency

Considering the slanted wording and inflammatory nature of these "questions" I would say that the TSA is already more credible than the person who wrote them.

THE tsa is a waste of time and our money. The whole agency should be abolished. 20 levels of security??? Idiots. Hire a few competnet people a nd be done with it. And let the people carry thier pocket knives if they want. I will never fly again until there are some major changes in the screening. Why should I take my shoes off when I can kill you with my hands? Stupid, stupid, stupid,. Did I say give me my knife back?? I got the message which is dont fly so I quit.

I've never seen such a disinformation campaign. I'm flabbergasted. The comments on this board are amazingly similar to those campaigns run during WWII in an effort to get the public hyped up about the war.

here are a few things I just noticed: The "Evolution" of the checkpoint is not a change AT ALL. There is more advertising space, yes. But, where are the crowds of people divided up by ballistic panels? If a bomber presents himself to the airport, he will most likely head for the front counter or checkpoint to find the highest concentration of people. Didn't anyone think of making dividers between lines in the waiting area so that large groups of people are protected? Where are the changes? There are none. And the new uniforms for TSA? Wow. What a farce. What the TSA really needs to do is hire a full time tailor and dry cleaners and have the people turn in and pick up their uniforms at the airport location. That way the uniforms are always accounted for (like a machine shop or car dealers' repair shop) and the people could take pride in a uniform that actually fits! Now, to give a blue short and badge to a non-law-enforcement person is, well, ridiculous. These guys are goung to be getting in trouble all over the country, claiming to be police officers.

Well, I can think of a lot more, but there are a couple. Make REAL CHANGES to safety in the checkpoint lines, not cosmetic ones. Assist screeners by tailoring their uniforms and cleaning them, not starting over.

I've been reading these comments and I'm, well, amused. Nothing here is based on FACTS. CNN, MSNBC, and other news organizations collect as many FACTS as they can and then come to a conclusion based on those facts. However, TSA Bloggers seem to use feelings, impressions and "knowledge" to present their side of the story. I know the answers to many of the questions that are posed on this board. I wish I were at liberty to discuss them. However, I encorage all the post-ers and post-ies to rely on FACTS, RESULTS, and conclusions based on those items. More often than not you will be correct.

Yes, data is manipulated all the time by governemnt to prove one side's point or the other. Duh. Yes, there are huge gaping holes in the protective shield that TSA claims to provide for the aviation sector. Yes, personal agendas and misinformed individuals are creating worse gaping holes in that shield.

Transparency of safety measures that actually work would be a good thing. In my other post I suggested ballistic dividers be placed in the area of the checkpoints and that waiting groups of people be seperated by these dividers so that no large group would be exposed to a blast. DUH! Use ideas that work. There is no defense to effective common sense.

I do not understand why this point is brought up so much. Even a cursory glance at the baggage system makes it obvious that TSA screeners have little opportunity to steal, while airline employees have a great deal of opportunity to do so. I know people who had things taken from thier luggage long before TSA was created. Continuing to bring this up appears to me to be a deliberate effort on the part of someone to shift the blame from the airlines to TSA.

The point here is that TSA requires that checked luggage be either unlocked, or only locked with special TSA locks (which seem to get cut-off or damaged with alarming frequency, leading to unlocked luggage). This creates more opportunities for theft from unscrupulous employees (either of the TSA or the airlines).

If TSA didn't require unlocked bags, there would be less opportunity for theft, and therefore (probably) less total theft.

In response to Margeret Atwood who, as a retired teacher, took my words to the board as a lesson to the class and said:

I am new to this blog, and I admit I am not a computer person. But after reading some of the rude things people are saying, and after a lengthy conversation with an old friend in the union, I felt I had to provide some input. Since Winston Smith has been kind enough to gather some of the comments I will use his remarks as a guide.

1) The lack of transparency of the rules at the checkpoints

I have no trouble with the rules when I fly. I do not find them to be hidden or difficult to understand. The last time I flew, I asked a TSA person to assist me with the liquid rules. He very helpfully guided me through preparing.

Ms. Atwood, I doubt that anyone here would even begin to suggest that there are no TSOs out there who are willing to help people out. You happened across one of the ones who does. What people have stated is that it is in no way uncommon to run across rude, surly, ill-mannered, ill-tempered, and just plain mean TSOs. In the same way it is not fair to paint all TSOs with the broad brush of bad from these anecdotes, one cannot make any generalizations based on your single experience.

2) The lack on consistency of the rules from airport to airport

As an educator it is obvious to me that the problem with consistency is one of training. It looks very much to me as if the screeners are overworked and struggling to keep up. My friend in the AFGE told me that the number of screeners employed by TSA is set by Congress, based upon five year old passenger data. And since then TSA has been trying to meet the demands of the public by broadening thier coverage, which has taken screeners away from thier first mission. In other words it appears that there are not enough screeners to handle the steady increase in the number of passengers. That in turn would imply a difficulty in having time for refresher training.

Let's assume for a moment that your friend has her facts correct (she only has some of the story... you can get a lot more from the GAO reports available at www.gao.gov) If the screeners don't have time for refresher training, this is a management issue. This is not in any way your responsibility, my responsibility, or the responsibility of any person who travels. This is manifest evidence of failure on the part of the TSA to keep their people trained in the face of what it attempts to sell to the American public as an imminent threat to its safety. Is this what you want, Ma'am, from your government?

3) The ridiculous liquids ban

I am convinced that it is possible to create a hazard to an aircraft with seemingly innocuous liquids. Something had to be done to limit that possibility. I might also point out that the phrasing of this question by Mr. Smith seems to indicate his lack of objectivity.

You may be convinced that one might concoct explosives in an airplane lavatory. I am not. Nor are a great number of other people. When I see credible evidence that such a thing could take place from a source I deem to be unbiased, I too will believe. As for my personal objectivity, I never claimed any. This is not necessarily an objective forum.

4) The needless continuation of the shoe removal protocol

Is anyone but me old enough to remember Max Smart's shoe phone? Or Jim West's shoe gun? Or Rosa Kleb's shoe knife? Yes, these are examples from fiction. However as popular media images they make the point that hiding things in shoes has been an obvious trick for a very long time. If the fiction images are unpalatable, then be aware that allied pilots in WWII hid escape tools in thier shoes.

It certainly is possible to hide things in shoes. It is also possible to hide things in your underwear, in your body cavities, and in all sorts of other creative ways. A person attempting to remove a weapon from a shoe on a flight in the post 9/11 world would be noticed and stopped. Alert passengers stopped Richard Reid, the man we all have to thank for having to remove our shoes in the first place. The point is not that we have to remove shoes or to do any specific thing, the point is that we do these things needlessly. If you think differently, I invite you to show me the evidence and convince me.

5) The high attrition rate for TSOs and low hiring standards for new TSOs

My friend in the AFGE told me that screeners have not seen a pay raise since the organization was created five years ago, because Congress barred them from the Government Service pay system. In addition the pay-for-performance system that Congress requires of them is so unhandy and complicated that it keeps good screeners from earning what little pay incentives there may be to stay with TSA. And Congress has barred TSA screeners from being unionized.So they have too few screeners, too poorly paid, berated by the public they are trying to serve, and with no recourse to redress thier greivances. Under those circumstances, I would preferto find other work as well. The irony is that these are precisely the problems that Congress originally intended the creation of TSA to solve.

Seems as if we pretty much agree on this one. The deck is stacked against the people on the front lines who face the public. The TSA is, however, starting to try to address this. Whether it will be able to do so is anyone's guess, but I have little confidence in the TSA's ability to do this any better than it has done anything else it does.

6) The problem of theft from checked baggage and what TSA is doing about it

I do not understand why this point is brought up so much. Even a cursory glance at the baggage system makes it obvious that TSA screeners have little opportunity to steal, while airline employees have a great deal of opportunity to do so. I know people who had things taken from thier luggage long before TSA was created. Continuing to bring this up appears to me to be a deliberate effort on the part of someone to shift the blame from the airlines to TSA.

It is the TSA that forces passengers to leave baggage unlocked. It is the TSA that opens locks and then neglects to re-lock bags. It is the TSA that rifles through bags and has the right to make "determinations" about what may or may not fly. Does this mean that the TSA is responsible for all of the thefts from luggage? Not at all. The TSA is, however, responsible for forcing passengers to leave their belongings unattended where they might be stolen. If the TSA requires you to leave the door open, then the TSA has an affirmative responsibility to make sure that no one undesirable comes through that door. It doesn't.

7) How specifically the TSA has made us any safer than we were pre 9/11 and given the American public value for its tax dollar over and above what we were getting for the money we were paying in our ticket price to the airlines when they were paying the freight for security

I do not fly as much now as I did when I was younger. But I do remember what security was like before TSA. I didn't realize it at the time, because I had nothing to compare it to then, but I see now that the old security was quite bad. When the airlines were "paying the frieght" they paid as little as possible. Before TSA most airport security content itself with quickly checking for a few obvious things. Baggage was never checked. And security was never allowed to interfere with "important" things such as the comfort of first class passengers or departure times. Even if some screeners today are not doing all that they should, they are still doing much more than was done before.

You say that security was bad before, yet nothing ever happened to you when you were flying. Somehow that seems like a pretty good track record to me.

8) What TSA's management is doing to polish up its tarnished image

I have read that this blog was created in order to provide a forum for communication between the public and the TSA. As I review the entrys, I find that a handful of nay-sayers are ruining it for everyone. Perhaps, there are problems with some screeners. I haven't had any problems, but there are a fair number of anechdotes. Perhaps it would help if this blog were allowed to be used for its intended purpose.

I'm sure Ms. Atwood, that *I* am one of your infamous nay-sayers. I'll wear the label proudly. Your nay-sayers, Ma'am, are in reality generally (with some notable exceptions I'll grant you) concerned citizens exercising their first amendment right to petition their government for redress of grievance. It's in the Constitution. Perhaps you've heard of it.

9) Why TSA ought to be taken seriously as a credible agency

Considering the slanted wording and inflammatory nature of these "questions" I would say that the TSA is already more credible than the person who wrote them.

Again, you, and perhaps others, may not consider me a credible source of information. I don't claim to be the Oracle of Delphi. When I present facts I do cite sources when I can and if someone asks me a question in a civil manner I'll always respond in a civil manner.

What I can tell you, Ma'am, is that I believe in this country and I'm sickened by what I'm watching it turn into. The TSA happens to be a symptom of what I believe to be a much larger problem. You say that you are a retired teacher. You refer to World War II so I can only assume that you are a person of an age to remember World War II. I, alas, am not. You remember a United States where people felt they could trust their government because generally they felt that the government, while not perfect, generally had the people's best intersts at heart. I grew up during VietNam and Watergate. I grew up at a time when the government demonstrated that it did *not* have the best interests of the people at heart. And since 1980 it has only gone downhill.

I am glad you have found helpful TSOs, others have not been as fortunate. I imagine part of that may be from that look that only a teacher can give. The look that says "straighten up or I will scold you and then send you to the Principle's office."

Your observation about training is on the mark. If the screeners are overworked and struggling to keep up then it is up to Kip and his upper management crew to do something about it. If the TSOs need raises, that falls to Kip, if the TSOs need training, that falls to Kip.

Lack of raises, overworked or lack of training does not give TSOs an excuse for bad behavior. As you read this blog you will see bad behavior by TSOs is the main complaint.

I have no argument with you observation on the liquids and shoes. I tip my hat for your use of a "Get Smart" reference.

I hope I can convince you that you are wrong about the luggage theft.

If the TSA can not secure my luggage against theft, then they can not secure my luggage against tampering.

Forget about theft for a second, what happens if someone places a bomb into my luggage? It stands to reason if someone can take an item in secret, they can place an item in secret.

When I hand my bag to the TSA, they take responsibility for that bag. Anything that happens to that bag is their responsibility.

The TSA has not made air travel any safer than it was before 9/11. This comes from their own people and other security experts. The TSA FAILS to detect weapons over 60% of the time in their own tests. This is a dismal rate when you consider their own testers intentionally triggered secondary screening.

The TSA up to this point has not proved itself to be a credible agency.

They have not improved safety even though it is their main job.

They have not fostered cooperation with the public. It is hard to cooperate when your valid complaints are dismissed.

They have not built any good will due to their behavior.

I am sorry Mrs. Atwood, the TSA is spending incredible amounts of money with minimal results.

Americans will put up with silly rules, we will put up with doing something we don't want to do like throw away water and take off our shoes. What we will not put up with is a lack of respect for our property or ourselves. We will not put up with a Govt. agency that gives the impression it is above the law.

We OWN the TSA the same way we own every Govt. agency. If we allow the TSA or ANY agency to become unaccountable, we, as owners, fail.

It is a no brainner why TSA will no divulge numbers of air mashalls on flights. As far as i can remeber one element of security is to never reveal the size of your manpower.

The strength of any security system is in its unpredictability otherwise it would be futile. An interesting point to note is that even TSA believes that a number of less than 1% is far too low to guarantee public comfort. even 5% of mashalls with over 20,000 flights sounds very low.

As stated , even the public does not expect protection for each an every passenger. Given the low numbers of mashals in these flights, from attrition, the TSA's primary focus has been to maintain total secrecy and unpredictability of their agents rotation.

Secrecy on the manpower i beleive is initself their greatest weapon. this is because of the fact that even if they had over 50% coverage in all flights but lacked the means to keep their schedules secret, it would still be very easy for terrorist infiltration.

Hence it does not matter the number, as long as the terrorist out there does not know which aircraft they will encounter air mashalls.

Nevertheless, the numbers should also be a reasonable reflection to the air traffic in usa

We can always count them ourselves if we are interested. They are the guys that get on the plane before boarding begins ( usually a really big dude wearing a sportjacket ). Really, the could be a little less obvious and board with the "regular" passengers.

the teacher said I do not fly as much now as I did when I was younger. But I do remember what security was like before TSA. I didn't realize it at the time, because I had nothing to compare it to then, but I see now that the old security was quite bad. When the airlines were "paying the frieght" they paid as little as possible. Before TSA most airport security content itself with quickly checking for a few obvious things. Baggage was never checked. And security was never allowed to interfere with "important" things such as the comfort of first class passengers or departure times. Even if some screeners today are not doing all that they should, they are still doing much more than was done before.

and smith saidYou say that security was bad before, yet nothing ever happened to you when you were flying. Somehow that seems like a pretty good track record to me.

and isay just becuase one teacher never had a problm does nmot mean that things were beter then. it just means that teacher was lucky. back in the 'good old days' hijacking was common enough that it became a regular joke for the stand ujp commedians in las vegas. remember d.b. coooper? i agree with the tacher. maybe tsa is having problems but they are certainly checking more stuff and checking better than the rentacops did in the 'good old dauys.'

jim saidIf TSA didn't require unlocked bags, there would be less opportunity for theft, and therefore (probably) less total theft.

i saidhorse apples! stuff has been stolen from bags since the fokker trimoter. did you see the report about the bag handlers in dallas who were throwing bags whole hog into a dumpster so they could come bak later and ransack them at thire lliesure? and did you notice haow ariline customer service tanked as soon as they realized they could blame stuff on the tsa? put the blame where it belongs. on the weasels in the airlines.

Of course theft happened before the TSA. I didn't say that TSA was responsible for theft in bags. I said that TSA's policy makes theft easier by creating more opportunity.

Look, I realize that if someone wants to steal something from my bags, nothing will stop them. But if I put a lock on my bags, it'll make it harder, or more time consuming ... and the casual thief will probably just move on. It's the same theory that applies to locks on houses, cars, and offices.

I would love for the TSA to certify and swear in citizen air marshal volunteers. The volunteers would indeed be armed, and would need to meet all existing air marshal requirements and clearances of course. Training would be free. This would produce a true randomness to the program, and increase the number of flights covered. It would be a way for concerned citizens to serve their country, get involved on a constructive level, and make a difference. When booking a flight, TSA would be notified of the passengers volunteer status, and could re-direct their permanent employees elsewhere if need be. Sign me up.

That’s a great idea jbeard, but I doubt it would a simple process. You can’t just start arming volunteers and training them for free! But if after a thorough back ground check I would certainly feel safer on a plane. Protect Americans and real estate. Sign me up as well.

I personally think there should be four armed and fully trained Federal Air Marshals on every commercial flight entering, leaving, or flying within the US. You could also put them in uniform so the terrorists can see that we mean business! These Marshals should be paid by the US Government as they are now but the airlines should be required to reimburse the US Government at a rate of 150 per cent of actual Air Marshal expenses (which would cover direct costs plus the operating costs of the TSA). Why should I as a taxpayer cover these costs whether I fly or not? Let the passengers cover the costs in their airline tickets through a charge to the airlines (which would be passed to the passenger through a fare increase).